Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not follow its policies and procedures when considering his reports of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour. He also complained the Council did not provide an appropriate remedy when he complained about its handling of his case. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused avoidable stress and had a negative impact on his mental health. We found fault by the Council, who agreed to apologise to Mr X and provide a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not follow its policies and procedures when considering his reports of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour. He also complained the Council did not provide an appropriate remedy when he complained about its handling of his case.
2. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his case from 2018 onwards, including how the Council handled his case via the courts.
3. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused avoidable stress and had a negative impact on his mental health and wellbeing.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated the complaints referred to in paragraph one. The final section of this statement explains my reasons for not investigating the complaints referred to in paragraph two.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
8. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
10. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
11. Mr X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Anti-social behaviour

12. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). ASB can take many different forms and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
13. For example, they may approach a complaint:

• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution, or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

14. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act) gave councils new powers to address anti-social behaviour. These include civil injunctions and community protection notices.

Community Trigger

15. The Act also introduced a mechanism to review the handling of complaints of ASB. This is commonly known as the ‘Community Trigger’ process. When a person requests a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether the local threshold has been met.
16. If the threshold has been met, the relevant bodies should undertake the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then inform the complainant of the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan. It is for relevant local bodies to agree their review threshold, but the ASB statutory guidance says this should be, at a maximum, that a complainant has made three reports of ASB within six months.

The Council’s anti-social behaviour policy

17. The Council’s ASB policy refers to the Act’s definition of ASB as:
1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
18. The policy says, “Our staff will give clear advice and appropriate support to all residents to help deal with ASB”.
19. The Council’s policy says details of how to invoke the Community Trigger are published on its website. The Council’s website provides a link by which complainant’s can request a review of their case.

Background

20. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
21. Mr X is a homeowner. Mr X reported noise nuisance from his neighbour, who is a Council tenant, to the Council in 2018.
22. Mr X reported several further incidents of ASB to the Council during 2019. In June 2019, the Council’s housing team and ASB team visited Mr X’s neighbour regarding their tenancy and the ASB issues.
23. The Council decided to apply to the courts for a possession order and in December 2019, it served Mr X’s neighbour with a notice seeking possession.

What happened

24. Mr X continued to report incidents of ASB in 2020. In March 2020, the Council issued a community protection notice warning to Mr X’s neighbour.
25. In September 2020, the Council asked Mr X to consider the possibility of serving an injunction against his neighbour. It said this was due to the continued incidents of ASB and the delays regarding possession hearings in court caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr X told the Council he did not wish to pursue this option.
26. Mr X contacted the Council in November 2020 to request an update regarding the court process as he was unhappy with how the matter was progressing.
27. Mr X continued to report incidents of ASB in 2021, during which time, the Council continued to pursue its court case against Mr X’s neighbour.
28. In September 2021, the Council told Mr X the courts had set a date for a trial sometime after February 2022. Mr X said he was unhappy with how the Council had handled his case and said it was slow to take action.

Mr X’s complaint

29. Mr X complained to the Council on 29 September 2021 about how it had handled his case since 2018.
30. The Council responded on 5 October 2021. It said it could not control the decisions of the courts and said the courts were dealing with a backlog of cases.
31. Mr X replied on the same day and said the Council had not answered his concerns. He complained about the time taken by the Council to respond to the incidents of ASB and said it should have intervened earlier. Mr X said the matter had caused him stress and anxiety.
32. On 8 October 2021, the Council told Mr X it would consider his response via its complaints procedure.
33. The Council contacted Mr X on 30 November 2021 and apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response. It said was continuing to investigate the complaint and would respond as soon as possible.
34. The Council provided its stage one complaint response on 15 December 2021. It provided an explanation of the events dating from early 2019 and the actions it had taken. The Council referred to the community protection notice warning issued in March 2020, followed shortly by the restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council acknowledged it did not escalate the community protection notice once it had issued the warning letter and once COVID-19 restrictions had eased. The Council said it was unable to justify why it did not escalate the matter as it considered it was proportionate to do so. The Council also acknowledged its communications with Mr X after it issued the warning letter were not timely. It said this was due to the impact of the restrictions caused by the pandemic and acknowledged that more frequent communication could have reduced Mr X’s worries. The Council said that although delays in the actions taken were due to matters outside its control, it considered it “negated to explore support to address the continued complaints of noise effectively”. The Council partially upheld Mr X’s complaint as a result.
35. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two. He said he was not confident about how the Council had handled the ASB investigation or his complaint. Mr X said although the Council had upheld his complaint it had not provided an apology.
36. The Council provided its stage two response on 11 February 2022. It agreed with the conclusions of the stage one response and apologised to Mr X for the communication concerns identified, and for its lack of apology at stage one.
37. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred his complaint to us.

Analysis

38. I have exercised discretion in investigating Mr X’s complaint back to September 2020. This is 12 months before Mr X made his complaint to the Council.
39. Mr X complains the Council did not follow its policies and procedures when considering his reports of ASB, specifically the Council’s Guide to Responding to complaints about Anti-Social Behaviour, Hate Crime and Nuisance (the guide). Mr X says:
1. The Council did not contact him or provide written confirmation within 10 working days following his reports of ASB
2. The Council did not contact him every six weeks as set out in the guide
3. The Council did not provide a vulnerability assessment as set out in the guide
40. I have reviewed the guide and the Council’s response to enquiries, as well as the information provided by Mr X.
41. The guide gives details of the Council’s service standards and says the Council will take action within 10 working days of a report of standard complaints. Case notes provided by the Council do not demonstrate this was always done. The Council’s ASB policy says, “Our staff will give clear advice and appropriate support to all residents to help deal with ASB”. However, in its stage one response, the Council acknowledged it “negated to explore support to address the continued complaints of noise effectively”.
42. The case notes show Mr X continued to report instances of ASB after September 2020, but the notes do not demonstrate if/what support the Council provided to Mr X. I acknowledge the court process was ongoing at the time. I also acknowledge the Council’s comments that its offer of an ASB injunction may have provided relief to the noise nuisance. However, I agree with the findings of the stage one response and consider the lack of support provided to Mr X was not in line with the Council’s guidance. This is fault.
43. The guide says the Council and the complainant will sign and date an action plan which includes agreeing the frequency of contact by an ASB officer. The guide says the Council will provide updates at least every six weeks, but more serious cases will require more frequent contact. Mr X complains the Council did not contact him every six weeks.
44. The Council says such updates relate to face-to-face meetings which it was not possible to carry out due to COVID-19 restrictions. The Council says its case numbers more than doubled during the pandemic whilst its resources were reduced due to illness and other work stressors.
45. I acknowledge the Council’s comments regarding this. However, the Council also says it does not have a copy of the action plan on file for Mr X’s case. It is therefore unable to demonstrate the agreed frequency of contact with Mr X. The guide specifies face-to-face updates should have been at least every six weeks, as well as updates made via telephone at least fortnightly. The Council’s case notes indicate the Council did not always provide regular updates to Mr X, and this is reflected in the stage one response.
46. As part of maintaining an effective and robust administrative process, we would expect councils to keep records to demonstrate what advice and support it provided to complainants, including its action plan, as part of its ASB investigations. The Council’s failure to keep these records is fault.
47. I have seen a copy of the Council’s vulnerability assessment from January 2019 regarding Mr X. I am therefore satisfied the Council completed an assessment in line with the requirements of its guidance.

The community protection notice

48. In its stage one response, the Council acknowledged it did not escalate the community protection notice warning and said it could not justify why it did not do so. The Council upheld this aspect of Mr X’s complaint and I acknowledge the findings of the stage one investigation. However, in its response to the draft of this decision, the Council said the reason it did not escalate the notice was because proving further breaches to a criminal standard would have been challenging due to COVID-19 restrictions. In addition, it said magistrates were not giving priority to such cases because of the pandemic. I acknowledge the Council’s comments regarding this. However, the Council did not provide this explanation to Mr X at the time of his complaint. The Council’s inability to justify its lack of escalation at the time of Mr X’s complaint is fault.

The Community Trigger

49. Mr X says the Council did not provide any information to him regarding the Community Trigger, and I have seen no evidence the Council informed him about this process. The Council says Mr X’s case was live and progressing, and the threshold for activating the Community Trigger may not have been met.
50. I acknowledge the Council’s ASB policy says details of how to invoke the Community Trigger are published on its website, and that the Council’s website provides a link for complainants to request a review of their case. I also acknowledge the Council’s comments that Mr X’s case may not have met the Community Trigger threshold. I cannot say whether Mr X’s case would have met the threshold for review; the relevant bodies involved with the Community Trigger process decide this. However, as Mr X made several ASB complaints and told the Council of his dissatisfaction with the outcome, the Council should have told him about the Community Trigger. This would have informed Mr X of his ability to request a review of the Council’s handling of his ASB complaints. The Council’s failure to inform Mr X of the Community Trigger is fault.
51. Having identified fault, I must consider if this caused a significant personal injustice to Mr X. He says the Council’s actions caused him stress and anxiety which negatively impacted his mental health and wellbeing.
52. I acknowledge the Council provided an apology in its stage two response. However, I consider this does not fully address the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

53. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Mr X for the fault identified;
2. Make a payment of £500 to Mr X in recognition of the stress and anxiety caused;
3. Provide Mr X with information about the Community Trigger for future reference, and
4. Remind staff to adhere to the Council’s Guide to Responding to complaints about Anti-Social Behaviour, Hate Crime and Nuisance, specifically regarding contact with complainants and the retention of records.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy the complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

55. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint dating back to 2018. This is because Mr X’s complaint relating to the events dating from 2018 is late.
56. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his case via the courts. This is because we cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. In addition, we cannot investigate the Council’s execution of its duties as a social housing provider.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman